`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: November 3, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01425 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01426 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, TRENTON A. WARD, GREGG I.
`ANDERSON, and ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent
`Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Authorizing Reply to Preliminary Response
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue this Order in each case using a joint
`caption. Unless otherwise authorized, the parties are not permitted to use a
`joint caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01425 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01426 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On November 1, 2016, Judges Easthom, Ward, Anderson, and
`Weinschenk held a telephone conference call with counsel for D-Link
`Systems, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and counsel for Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”). A court reporter was present on the conference call. This Order
`summarizes statements made during the conference call. A more complete
`record may be found in the court reporter’s transcript, which is to be filed by
`Patent Owner as an exhibit.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Petitioner requested authorization to file a reply to Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response. Petitioner explained that, in the Preliminary
`Response, Patent Owner argues that the Petition fails to identify all of the
`real parties-in-interest. According to Petitioner, that portion of the
`Preliminary Response contains factual and legal errors that Petitioner could
`not have anticipated at the time the Petition was filed. Petitioner indicated
`that its reply, if authorized, would address those errors. Petitioner also
`indicated that it plans to submit additional evidence with the reply, including
`a declaration previously filed with a district court. Petitioner, however, did
`not know whether that declarant could be made available for a deposition.
`Patent Owner responded that Petitioner had not made a showing of good
`cause, as required to warrant a reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Patent
`Owner pointed out that the portion of the Preliminary Response that
`addresses the real party-in-interest issue only relies on information that was
`known to Petitioner at the time the Petition was filed.
`After considering the respective positions of the parties, we find that
`good cause exists to grant Petitioner’s request to file a limited reply to the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01425 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01426 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`
`Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Specifically, to the
`extent the Preliminary Response contains alleged factual inaccuracies
`relating to the real party-in-interest issue, Petitioner could not have been
`expected to anticipate and address those alleged inaccuracies in the Petition.
`Petitioner, therefore, is authorized to file a 3-page reply by November 11,
`2016. The scope of the reply is limited to addressing any alleged factual
`inaccuracies in the portion of the Preliminary Response that relates to the
`real party-in-interest issue. Petitioner may cite to evidence already of record
`in this case, but Petitioner may not submit any new evidence or testimony
`with the reply.
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a reply to
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner may file a 3-page reply by
`November 11, 2016, in accordance with the instructions above; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that no surreply is authorized.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01425 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`IPR2016-01426 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Victoria Hao
`Martha Hopkins
`LAW OFFICES OF S.J. CHRISTINE YANG
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin S. Cohen
`THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
`
`Richard W. Hoffman
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`
`4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
